2023 Ohio 2020
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Property at 1805 Mill Point Rd., Marysville owned by The Residence at Cooks Pointe, LLC; two residents (the Cooks) filed a third-party taxpayer complaint on Feb 25, 2022 challenging valuation.
- Marysville Exempted Village Schools Board of Education filed a counter-complaint on May 3, 2022 seeking higher valuation; Union County Board of Revision held a hearing and on Sept 5, 2022 left valuation unchanged.
- H.B. 126 amended R.C. 5717.01 (effective July 21, 2022) to bar a "subdivision that files an original complaint or counter-complaint … with respect to property the subdivision does not own or lease" from appealing a board-of-revision decision to the BTA.
- School board filed its appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) on Sept 30, 2022; property owner moved to dismiss based on the H.B. 126 amendment; the BTA dismissed the appeal on Dec 28, 2022, relying on its North Ridgeville decision.
- The school board appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals, which reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and reversed the BTA, holding the amendment did not apply to complaints filed before July 21, 2022.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 126's amendment to R.C. 5717.01 applies to appeals filed after July 21, 2022 when the underlying complaint/counter-complaint was filed before that date | The present-tense language "a subdivision that files" is prospective; absence of express retroactivity means the amendment cannot be applied to complaints filed prior to July 21, 2022 | The amendment took effect July 21, 2022 and bars appeals filed on or after that date by subdivisions that do not own/lease the subject property; BTA therefore lacked jurisdiction | Court held the amendment is prospective only and does not apply to appeals stemming from complaints filed before July 21, 2022; reversed BTA dismissal |
| Whether present-tense wording indicates prospective application or can be read to reach pending actions | Present tense "files" ties the prohibition to filing of complaint/counter-complaint, not to filing of the appeal; plain language favors prospective application | Amendment is unambiguous and effective on its enactment date; BTA should apply it to appeals filed after the effective date | Court emphasized statutory-construction presumption against retroactivity and found present tense supports prospective application |
| Whether the BTA correctly followed North Ridgeville in dismissing the appeal | School board argued North Ridgeville misread the statute and ignored rules of statutory interpretation (tense, retroactivity presumption, definitions) | Owner/BTA relied on North Ridgeville precedent holding the amended statute applied to appeals filed on or after July 21, 2022 | Court found North Ridgeville flawed on this point, reversed the BTA, and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 155 Ohio St.3d 373 (2018) (BTA is a creature of statute; has only jurisdiction conferred by General Assembly)
- Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007) (presumption statutes operate prospectively; retroactivity must be expressly stated)
- Smith v. Ohio Valley Ins. Co., 27 Ohio St.2d 268 (1971) (present-tense operative language does not ordinarily reach past events)
- Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010) (present-tense statutory language supports prospective application)
- Westerville City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 146 Ohio St.3d 412 (2016) (standard of review for BTA decisions; de novo review on questions of law)
- Bd. of Edn. of Gahanna-Jefferson Local School Dist. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St.3d 231 (2001) (court may reverse BTA where based on incorrect legal conclusions)